9-1-1: Cancel your response.

May 17, 8:50 AMLA Gun Rights ExaminerJohn Longenecker

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Ohio State Senator, Republican Thomas Patton has introduced a bill to forbid broadcasting of the content of 9-1-1 calls to the public. The Bill reduces public accessability to the request for aid to reading a transcript of the call, and for breach of the law, a $10,000 fine. I mention this for two reasons: 9-1-1 issues are a national concern, and I know something about 9-1-1.

The question as framed is whether it is necessary for the public to have access to these recordings. I say, Affirmative. Translation: Yes. It is necessary for the public to have unfettered access to the recordings. The problem of 9-1-1 systems everywhere is that they need their own penalty for refusing access to them.

I have several reasons as to why all 9-1-1 calls should be accessible to the public, and how selected calls should be broadcast to the public. The main reason is that they serve illustrative purposes.

Supervision. The recording itself is a valuable tool to aid supervision of 9-1-1- protocols. This means training in how 9-1-1 will respond to a request for aid. Supervision can detect operator burn-out sooner, rectify technical or judgment error sooner, and identify weaknesses in the system to be marked for improvement. Supervision is not a passive concept, but an active concept, and that means taking action such that errors are stopped by intervention, and that could mean long before they even evolve within the system to become the scandal they can become. Access to recordings means monitoring even the suprvisors.

Accountability. Making actual recordings of requests for aid easily accessible to the public facilitates accountability of personnel from operators to department heads. This is important when it can focus on a single operator who has a personal problem in the performance of duty. Blame is an essential to problem-solving, and anonymity or protecting the identity of the individual operator only continues the problem. Secrecy about who did what or who failed to do what only delays improvement when there is no one to answer to, and the agency answers to the public. Secrecy evades this and sounds like a blatant attempt at an overall personal perk or luxury of selective cover-up.

Case study value. When I was a Los Angeles Paramedic, we had Rotating Base Station Meetings, and at every meeting, we had an hour of continuing education along with a recording of the most significant calls of the month. These were cassette recordings of the mission in radio communication between the Paramedics and the Base Station. All persons would critique the mission for clarity of patient assessment, speed, other effective communication, patient response to treatment, legal issues, and other values and standards. It served a most valuable purpose, and was not secret. The identify of the patient was protected, and generally, the Paramedics on the call were present. Sometimes there was criticism t go with the analysis, sometimes there was an abundance of praise to go with the analysis. Case study is at the heart of Medicine as much as Accounting and Law as illustrative not always of facts, but of understanding.

Civilian input. 9-1-1 calls have an evidentiary value, the evidence of whether the system works or is being worked over. It cannot fall into the same treasure chest of personal toys of officials in their personal playground. Secrecy facilitates this. The recording of the entire call in real time supports watchdog of government assets, such as reporters, and as blogging grows, more people become more aware of performance of public agencies by way of the new media.

Let's be frank: we are talking about broadcasting calls which may prove to be embarrassing to the system.

But embarrassment is hardly reason enough to deny citizen oversight. The feelings of the operator in error are not reason enough to deny citizen oversight of the system. And allegations of personal safety is not reason enough to accuse citizens of revenge or retaliation. And stating that citizens will be less likely to call 9-1-1 if calls are broadcast is not a very credible reason to refuse and punish the release of recording. It is the least credible reason of all.

America admires and appreciates its 9-1-1 and relies heavily on its proper operation. We need to keep it this way. Hiding calls only aggravates the public perception of siege mentality and code of silence.

Finally, there is the best reason of all for broadcasting requests for aid, and it is in giving the public credit for its discernment. 9-1-1 is a public asset, and subject to the authority of the people. Give the public some credit for being as compassionate and understanding of its public servants as it can be resolute and punishing. The public has powers of discernment, and can tell the difference between an honest mistake and a rotten attitude.

The key is not to obfuscate citizen oversight, but to get rid of the rotten attitudes and broadcast it as a model of professional integrity.
____________________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns. For added insight on liberty, citizen authority and independence, please visit our other Examiners listed in the SIDEBAR on the right. > Remember also the importance of the Second Amendment March, April, 2010. Internet Search Term Second Amendment March.